Intel’s next-gen 64-bit chip: Monticeto

By
02.26.2002 :: 12:24PM EST

Intel is mostly tight-lipped about it, but it seems we'll have another generation of 64-bit architecture arriving in 2004. About all they'll detail right now is its code name, Monticeto. The Register's Drew Cullen has some information about it (read here). It doesn't appear to be a Yamhill derivative, however (no x86-64 or “Hammer” clone). Intel has revealed it will be a 0.09 micron (90 nm) chip and will represent an “evolution” in Intel's 64-bit design. My hopeful guess would be an HT-enabled version of Itanium that does some at-execution-time reorganization of CPU instructions where possible, similar to the way the Pentium Pro and later IA-32 CPUs do. Some additional information about Itanium's future: the upcoming Madison release (in 2003) will boast up to 6 MB of on-die L3 cache, the most we've seen in production from Intel.

USER COMMENTS 19 comment(s)

2004(12:39pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)wow… us MAC folks will have 64bit chips within the year.

i guess itanium was a huge success. – by :P

I'm sick of speculation(1:51pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)Can we please stop listening to Intel's ” we hope to have this in the future” speal!!!!! DAMN!!!

Let's look at using things that are real in the here and now that already smoke everything that Intel has. Come on people,

As for 64-bit, do you really want to put your multi-million dollar, multi-terabyte databases on an unproven platform from Intel?? Let's stick to something that has been time-tested and proven such as UltraSparc so we don't lose our jobs the day the thing crashes or Intel announces that a floating point unit bug has been found….

– by The Scavenger

The Scavenger(2:13pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)“Let's stick to something that has been time-tested and proven…”

Hmmm that's kind of funny that you should say that. Isn't that the same “argument” Intel users use to dissuade people from buying AMD? – by Just asking…

Re: The Scavenger(2:14pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)

Intel is a big player in the CPU marketplace. Whether you or I like it or not, people listen to them. Visit CNBC.COM some day and look at the press Intel gets. Everyone listens to them. It's a fact of life.

– by Rick C. Hodgin

RE: Just asking…(2:21pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)If you notice, I started that paragraph with “As for 64-bit”. Yes, AMD Athlons may not have been around that long, but AMD does have many years of experience with the x86 instruction set, so AMD is pretty safe at this point.

You say go with AMD for performance reasons (they know x86 instruction sets). Then you say stick with Sun because it proven. Hmmm…

It would be equally valid to say, stay away from AMD due to their poor chipset development (anything from VIA=poor validation and lack of USB for AMD's own MPX chipset doesn't sit well for me). AMD's processors are wonderful but I gotta have a good board to install them into… It would be equally valid to say, look at Intel for 64-bit enterprise computing, they are virutally on the only company truly innovating in the area with the funding and expertise to challenge Sun. One day they are going to get it right.

Lets look at what is in production right now. Tualatin-S processors for low power servers (1U and 2U dualies), AMD's response? None. WORKING dual motherboards with server quality uptimes and validation, AMD's response? MPX???? Corporate computing with tier 1 support with high quality components? AMD's not quite there yet. Single processor gaming machines? The only market that AMD currently is winning in…

Like it or not Intel is not going to lay down and die. Thankfully AMD exists to push Intel in both development and pricing, otherwise it would be a lot more $$$$ for me to get hardware. – by Action

But, if you want high-end then maybe you're better off with P3's for 32-bit, although I think AMD would work well here too. P4's are just a waste of money.

AMD multi-processing is a bit suspect right now though.

Now, for anything 64-bit, low or high, Intel has nothing. Itanium is a risk. AMD's Hammer is also. I'm not taking risks in this arena on Itanium or anything Intel…or AMD. This leaves UltraSparc, Alpha(R.I.P.) and PA-RISC and the other tried and true 64-bit chips.

So, if you don't mind the risk, try the Intel, maybe it will work, maybe not.

– by The Scavenger

The Scavenger(4:03pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)Well, actually, I would tend to agree with you about Itanium. I just thought it was amusing, and perhaps a bit ironic. The question asked over and over again by Intel supporters regarding AMD products is turned around and used on Intel.

I say turnabout is fair play. :) – by Just asking

MPX (4:27pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)was fixed. It had a problem with OLD USB 1.0, so they shipped it with USB 2.0. Also, your forgetting the tyan tiger and thunder. Now, Intel says in 2 years, they'll have 64bit. So, in 5 years, Hammer will have been out for 3 years and intel will finally start to test Monticeto. – by Warplex

AMD multi-processing(5:35pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)have any of you used the TYAN Dual Athlon??? i've been using one for almost 8 months and it kicks ass. i can honestly say this board is worth the money. and the benchmarks against dual Xeon boards are impressive as well. – by :P

64 bit Pentium?(6:02pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)Come on man, Ive got an ancient Nintendo thing with full 64 bit buses… What we really need is some seriours SIMD engines like the (gulp) G4's AltiVec Velocity Engine. Then we can speed… – by come on

to action(10:23pm EST Tue Feb 26 2002)poor Action you don't have a clue..intel is shit… amd is a damn good processor… G4's are the best and apple have use 64 bit forever…intel are old news that are shit…intel isn't getting any advanced with amd around just more scared and a fooling customers even more with bullshit like “oh look we are bringing out something really cool that mac has had for years and guess what even though athlons and g4's kick our asses we will keep pretending that we know how to advance technology.” what a load of shite – by Macathlon

Actually…(7:44am EST Wed Feb 27 2002)That would be “Montecito” and not “Monticeto”… :)– by -.-.-.-.-

Some people just can't abide success(10:42am EST Wed Feb 27 2002)Intel, the largest and most profitable manufacturer in the PC industry. Sure Apple was a massive innovator, but their approach to software development, OS licensing, and market pricing utterly killed their advantages for long enough to have MS, in combination with IBM and Intel, wipe Apple from all but niche markets. My first machines were Apple II, then IIe, then 128K Mac, then 512K Mac, then Fat Mac, then Mac II, and then a Centris as a final hurrah. From then on, it was apparent that Mac as a platform wasn't going to hack it in the real world.

Sorry, when your company is trying to break into the dual arena and you are competing with the likes of the i840 (which is quite a good performance chipset) or the i860 (again a very good performing chipset) and don't bother to validate your chipset with USB 1.0, then I have no particular interest. Its like VIA all over again. AMD shipped the MPX with USB 2.0 cards because they FAILED to validate the operation of USB 1.0. True AMD has since fixed the chipset, but then again no board is currently shipping with the fixed product.

AMD makes wonderful processors, too bad their integration in a single package is so suspect.

Dual Prestonia competes very favorably with any of the Athlons shipping today, why bother with something that has issues when you can get something that works without a problem? Then again, I'm willing to pay more to not have to fiddle endlessly to get/keep my machines running 24/7/365.

Currently Intel doesn't make anything that can challenge something like a PA-RISC, but they will one day. We are just seeing them stick their toes in the water, chances are that within the next couple of years, they will succeed (albeit in a moderate way). Hammer is not enterprise 64-bit computing like the PA-RISC, its something a bit on the smaller side. – by Action

amd fighting losing war(11:07am EST Wed Feb 27 2002)don't miss understand me amd makes great processors. but for every processor amd sells they have to pay intel royalties. thats like ford having to pay chevy every time they sell a car! you can't beat an enemy that you are funding! the better you do the better they do! – by pissed off